Corn-fed Cows are Killers; Killing Us and Earth With Every Bite

When we picture cows in our mind, an idyllic scene of big, lazy animals chewing on grass in a field is usually what we think of. In today’s reality, with the explosion of factory farming, that picture couldn't be farther from the truth. Most cows today can be found in Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations or CAFO for short. CAFO's are large facilities where on average 3,000 cows are kept and fed until they are slaughtered for beef. While confined, the feed they eat is comprised of mostly corn and grain. This is not their natural diet. The consequences of something as small as feeding a cow corn has effects that can extend from vegetative destruction to the death of a healthy two year old boy. These disastrous events can be reduced by something as simple as a change of one feed ingredient. CAFO's feeding cows grain is inhumane and dangerous because it causes the growth and spread of E.coli through tainted beef and waste runoff, so switching cows back to their natural diet of grass is better for humans, cows and the environment, resulting in healthier beef with a higher nutritional value.

Feeding cows grain and corn is inhumane and dangerous to both the cows and humans who eat the beef. In “The Ethics of What We Eat” by Peter Singer, he explains that cows are ruminants which are animals who have a rumen. Ruminant animals have a digestive system that has evolved to break down grass (61). The rumen is the first part of a cow’s stomach used for digestion where resident bacteria convert cellulose into proteins and fats. Ruminants are meant to eat grass which their rumen can digest. Singer says, “If they don’t get enough roughage, they develop lactic acid in their rumens, which creates gas and causes ‘feedlot bloat,’ a condition so severe that cattle can suffocate from it (61). Corn and other grains are not digested by ruminants. When they are fed corn it causes the rumen to expand and apply pressure to the animal’s lungs which can cause suffocation. According to author Michael Pollan, “in some cases a tube has to be shoved down the animal’s esophagus in order to avoid suffocation.” Changing an animal’s natural diet in order to benefit us is cruel. The only reason we feed the cows corn is that it fattens them up quickly so we can slaughter them earlier and get more beef from each cow. Our greed has made us alter nature with no regard to the animal’s welfare. Ruminants have a normal pH level in their gut. Forcing them to eat corn and grain raises changes the ph level making their guts extremely acidic. According to Northwestern Health Sciences University, “Cud-chewing animals such as cows, goats, buffalo and sheep are designed to eat fibrous grasses, plants and shrubs. When they are fed starchy, low fiber grain, a number of problems can arise. Subacute acidosis is a very common condition that affects cattle. This condition causes cattle to kick at their bellies, stop eating and begin to eat dirt. These animals are often given chemical additives along with a constant, low-level dose of antibiotics to prevent reactions from being fatal.” Acidosis is similar to severe heartburn in humans, which as we know is very uncomfortable and painful; however in cows it can be even more problematic. As stated they will stop eating and eat dirt trying to calm the burning feeling they are having inside them. They will pant and salivate excessively. Acidosis can cause other unnatural effects on the cow such as diarrhea, liver disease, and ulcers. These conditions can cause a weakening of the cow’s natural immune system leaving it susceptible to diseases such as feedlot bloat, polio and pneumonia. In order to prevent death, the cows are often given constant, low level doses of antibiotics and chemical additives. This constant use of antibiotics causes the bacteria to naturally evolve and become resistant to the medicine. Changing the chemical makeup of an animal’s internal system which puts it in unnecessary pain is inhumane. CAFO's with their over-crowded, dirty conditions are already the perfect breeding ground for disease and bacteria, so the last thing you want having to live there is an animal with a lowered immune system, especially one whose meat might eventually land up on your plate. As stated before, cattle aren't designed to digest grain, so the epigastric pH levels and acids from a grain diet allows E.coli bacteria to thrive in the cows gut because the pH balance has been altered. The USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) and Cornell University researchers conducted a study on how the diet of cattle affects the growth and spread of E.coli bacteria including the deadly strain E.coli 0157:H7. One of the researchers, microbiologist and Cornell University professor James Russell, explained that the bovine gastrointestinal tract digests starch poorly and that some undigested grain reaches the colon where it is fermented. When the grain ferments, it causes acetic, propionic and butyric acids to accumulate and that leads to a large fraction of the E.coli that are being produced to evolve into the acid-resistant type. The study shows that tests performed on cattle, fed grain had 1 million acid-resistant E.coli, per gram of feces, while the cattle fed grass had only acid-sensitive E.coli. The difference is that acid-resistant E.coli can survive contact with acid while the acid-sensitive bacteria will be destroyed by contact with acid. This is an important factor when it comes to humans eating beef laced with E.coli bacteria, one that can mean the difference between life and death that we will discuss later in this paper. That high count of acid-resistant E.coli can be explained by the grain fermentation in the cow’s intestines. In order to keep the E.coli growth under control and keep the animals alive, CAFO’s have to continually put antibiotics such as penicillin in the cows feed. When you continually feed the animal antibiotics in order to kill off bacteria inside them, evolution will lead to the development of bacteria immune to the antibiotics. Overuse of antibiotics has created a new strain of super bacteria that can no longer be killed off basically rendering the antibiotics useless. A report in Time magazine estimates that seventy percent of the nation’s antibiotics are fed to livestock to prevent illnesses. The American Medical association wants all nontherapeutic use of antibiotics to be stopped. The problem with that is, because of the corn fed diets effects of stomach ulcers, bloating, and liver abscesses on cows, the line of what is just routine practice and what is necessary to save the cows life is blurred. The bottom line is that it’s the grain diet that causes these afflictions, so if the diet was changed the antibiotics would not be needed as much and when bacteria was detected it would be killed off because it would not have grown resistant to the medicine. Cows raised on grass based diets rarely require antibiotic treatment.

The beef and waste produced from corn fed cows infected with E.coli is harmful to the environment and humans, possibly even deadly. As we previously discussed, the corn feed diet has disastrous effects on the digestive system of the cow but it also has profound consequences on the humans who eat the beef. Our stomach is acidic by nature in order for us to dissolve and digest the food we’ve eaten, but it also serves as a defensive barrier in our body. The acid in our stomach helps kill off bacteria that may enter our body through the food we’ve eaten. One type of bacteria that we come in contact with through our beef is E.coli. Usually if we eat infected meat the acid in our stomach would kill off the E.coli bacteria, but as we discussed earlier, since the pH level inside cows has become acidic the bacteria is now immune to the acid shock that would usually kill it. The Cornell University report indicated that the grain based cattle diet promotes the growth of E.coli that can survive the acidity of the human stomach and cause intestinal illness. Russell explains that, “most bacteria are killed by the acid of stomach juice, but E.coli from grain fed cattle are resistant to strong acids. When people eat foods contaminated with acid-resistant E.coli including pathogenic strains like 0157:H7, the chance of getting sick increases.” E.coli is a normal bacterium in the gastrointestinal tract of animals and humans, and most types are not harmful. However there are disease-causing strains such as E.coli 0157:H7 that produce toxins which result in bloody diarrhea or kidney failure in humans. Due to the meatpacking industry’s greed and desire to raise bigger, fatter cows quickly, they created the perfect conditions for microbes to evolve into strains that can harm and kill us. Michael Pollan explains, “Most of the microbes that reside in the gut of a cow and find their way into our food get killed off by the acids in our stomachs, since they originally adapted to live in a neutral-pH environment. But the digestive tract of the modern feedlot cow is closer in acidity to our own, and in this new, manmade environment acid-resistant strains of E.coli have developed that can survive our stomach acids and go on to kill us. By acidifying a cow’s gut with corn, we have broken down one of our food chain’s barriers to infections.” Once again in our race to make things quicker and bigger, we never take the time to think about the consequences of what we create, and how our “make it now” and “we’ll fix it later” attitude always seems to come around and bite us in our “you know what.” Outbreaks of food poisoning from E.coli tainted beef have been on the rise recently with many resulting in death. The USDA and Cornell university report states that E.coli contamination is responsible for more than twenty thousand infections and over two hundred deaths each year in the United States. According to Time magazine, in 1993, six hundred people in Seattle got sick and three children died after eating E.coli tainted hamburger meat. In January 2010, Newstex reported that the USDA recalled 248,000 lbs. of steaks that had been distributed to Midwestern chain restaurants. The USDA categorized the recall as a “Class 1” event indicating a “high health risk” due to the finding of E.coli 0157:H7 in the meat. One tragic death made popular by the Robert Kenner film, “Food Inc.” was that of two and a half year old Kevin Kowalcyk who died of food poising after eating an E.coli tainted hamburger. In the summer of 2001 Kevin went from a healthy toddler to being dead in twelve days from just eating a hamburger. His death and his mothers activism has brought attention to the problem and stirred up support for a bill that would enhance food safety. The bill is aptly titled, “Kevin’s Law”, and was finally passed in 2009. What is even scarier now is, that because of CAFO’s, the threat of E.coli is not only limited to beef, but also our vegetables and water supply. With the amount of animals in a CAFO it is a big task to dispose of all the waste safely and properly. Since E.coli bacteria can also be found in the cows feces, it leads to infected manure. It’s the infected manure from the grain-fed cattle that contaminates the groundwater and spreads the bacteria to produce, like spinach growing on neighboring farms. In a January 2009 Environmental Protection Agency document, an Oregon CAFO owner John Bezates agreed to pay an eight thousand dollar penalty to settle Clean Water act discharge violations stemming from his CAFO. According to Laura Davies, EPA acting Director, Office of Compliance and Enforcement in Seattle, “When CAFO’s fail to take proper precautions, including obtaining necessary wastewater discharge permits, their manure laden runoff can pollute our creeks, rivers and streams.” The document states that CAFO’s continue to be a leading source of water quality impairment in the U.S. The environmental harm doesn’t just stop at manure though, you have to take into account the effect on our air quality and drain on our resources. You have to look at the amount of fuel burned by the machines that have to harvest all that corn we use to feed the cows. According to author Robyn O’Brien, The U.S. produces 1.5 billion bushels of corn a year just to feed to cows. Most of the corn and soy grown in the United States goes for livestock feed (119). The fossil fuels used to transport the corn to CAFO’s add to our already polluted atmosphere whereas grass gets it energy from the sun. Dr. David Pimentel, professor of ecology and agricultural sciences at Cornell University explains that it takes half the fossil-fuel energy to produce two pounds of grass-fed beef as it does to produce the same amount of grain-fed. Growing the corn requires large amounts of chemical fertilizer, which by itself is bad for the air, but it also takes oil to produce and spread the fertilizer. Pimentel says a typical grain-fed steer will in effect consume 284 gallons of oil in his lifetime. It seems that the corn-fed beef does more than just damage our bodies; it’s also draining and destroying our planet.

Now that we’ve discussed all the negative effects of grain-fed beef on ourselves and our environment, let’s talk about one solution to the problem. Switching cows back to a grass based diet will reduce the growth of acid-resistant E.coli bacteria which will produce safer, healthier beef, which studies have shown to be higher in nutritional value. A 2003 Journal of Dairy Science report noted that up to eighty percent of dairy cattle carry E.coli 0157, however after switching the cows from grain to grass for only five days the experiment showed the E.coli 0157 declined 1,000-fold. The cows diet not only affects the amount of bacteria found in the beef but also the nutritional makeup of the meat. According to the Mayo Clinic, when compared to grain-fed beef, grass-fed beef is lower in total fat, lower in the saturated fats linked with heart disease, higher in vitamin E, vitamin B, beta-carotene, calcium, magnesium, potassium, vaccenic acid, CLA(conjugated linoleic acid) and has higher levels of heart healthy omega-3 fatty acids. Omega-3s protect our cardiovascular system and support optimal brain function. According to a California State University report, when cattle are taken off grass diets and switched to grain they immediately begin losing the omega 3’s they have stored in their tissues. As a result the grain-fed meat only contains 15-50 percent as much omega-3s as grass-fed. Cows that eat grass have twice the CLA per serving compared to grain fed. CLA has been linked to numerous health benefits including reduction of carcinogens, atherosclerosis, diabetes, and certain types of cancer. The report supports the findings that grass-fed beef contain a higher proportion of healthful lipids and antioxidants important to human health when compared to grain-fed.

As you can the feeding of grain to cows has many far reaching effects. Not only does it jeopardize our health and has the potential to actually kill us, but it is playing a big role in our reliance on fossil fuels and pollution of our air and water. Even with those factors that affect us personally, the fact remains that not only do we suffer, but so does the cow. The cattle are put through unnecessary pain and treated inhumanely with the constant feeding of antibiotics in order to keep them alive. One simple solution is actually just doing the right thing, the natural thing and putting the cattle back on their natural diet of grass. It would solve so much and benefit us on many levels including our health, food and where we call home, earth.

Works Cited
O'Brien, Robyn, and Rachel Kranz. "Corn Controversies." The Unhealthy Truth: How Our Food Is Making Us Sick and What We Can Do about It. New York: Broadway, 2009. 119. Print.
Singer, Peter, and Jim Mason. "Meat and Milk Factories." The Ethics of What We Eat: Why Our Food Choices Matter. [Emmaus, Pa.]: Rodale, 2006. 61. Print
References
Abbott, A., M. Basurto, C.A. Daley, G. Nader, and S. Larson. "Enhanced Nutrient Content of Grass Fed Beef:Justification for Health Benefit Label Claim." University of California Cooperative Extension Service. College of Agriculture, California State University, Chico. Web.
Food Inc. Dir. Robert Kenner. Perf. Michael Pollan. Magnolia Pictures, 2008. DVD.
"Grain-Fed Versus Grass-Fed Animal Products." Northwestern Health Sciences University, 2002. Web. .
Grogan, M.D., Martha. "Grass-fed Beef: What Are the Heart-health Benefits?" Mayo Clinic Medical Information and Tools for Healthy Living - MayoClinic.com. 5 Jan. 2010. Web. 07 June 2010. .
Moyer, Lindsay. "Grass Is Greener: Buy Healthy Meat." Womens Health July-Aug. 2008. Print
Planck, Nina. "Leafy Green Sewage." New York Times 21 Sept. 2006. Print
The Grass-Fed Revolution." Time 11 June 2006. LexisNexus. Web. 28 Apr. 2010
.
Segelken, Roger. "CU and USDA: Cattle Feeding Change Could Cut E.coli Risk." Cornell Chronicle [Massachusetts] 17 Sept. 1998. Print
Environmental Protection Agency. Documents and Publications. Feedlot Facility Pays $8,000 for Alleged Animal Waste Violations. Ontario, Oregon, 2009. Print.
Robbins, John. "What About Grass-fed Beef?" Foodrevolution.org. Web. .

Letting Fast Food Companies Advertise.....

School should be an ad-free zone for children. We should not under any circumstances allow fast food advertising into our schools. Letting fast food companies advertise in the schools would send the wrong message to our children. It would compromise the trust we expect them to have towards school. Also if the fast food companies were able to advertise in schools it would give them some influence in the learning process because they would have access to the children’s minds. Therefore they would be able to promote their corporate agenda to a captive, naïve, immature audience. It would turn schools from a neutral place of learning into a 6 hour blitz of ads which the children are unable to escape from. Once let in there would be no way to avoid their influence because we would have given them the consent to corrupt the young minds.

School is supposed to be an educational environment but if fast food advertising is started it will send the wrong message to students. We teach our children to listen to their teachers, principals and guidance counselors. We let them know these people have their best interest at heart. They are put on the same level as parents in many ways. As small children school is the first place your parents ever leave you at. They drop you off in nursery school and tell you to listen to what your teachers tell you. That implies a level of trust. You feel that your parents trust the school with your welfare. School plays a major role in children’s development. Their experiences and what they learn in school shapes their future. They are told what they learn in school will help them throughout their lives. Children learn a variety of subjects from biology to basketball; Spanish to sexual education; so if they saw a McDonald’s or Burger King ad in school, they might assume that what is being advertised has some value to it. By having the ad inside, it seems that the school is promoting the product. That has a powerful effect because it is being shopped to a captive audience that has been taught to trust what they learn in school. Steven Kaplan, president of Sampling Corporation of America states, “There is an implied endorsement from a trusted institution” (22). School is where children learn not only facts from books but also some life and moral values. When students see “MADD” (Mothers Against Drunk Driving) and “Just Say No to Drugs” posters they learn that getting high or drunk driving is bad for them. They see posters for different colleges and know that in order to have a productive future it is encouraged to go. So if they see an ad for a Whopper or Big Mac on the wall then they would surely think that it would be good for them because their school wouldn’t steer them wrong. It’s right there next to other ideas we encourage, so at that young age a child wouldn’t know the difference. Allowing these products to be advertised in school sends children the message they are good for them when the reality is the exact opposite. How can we teach healthy eating habits and healthy living when we are sending mixed messages to them. At a young, impressionable age the line between fact and propaganda would get blurred, and the trust associated with school would get ruined. In the class teachers are teaching students to eat healthy within the four food groups. Eat fruits and vegetables and how important it is to keep in shape and be healthy. So then why would you make them privy to products that could destroy their health with results such as type 2 diabetes and heart disease? On one hand we are telling them what’s bad for them, but then promoting it. At such a young age they would not know who or what to believe, so they would revert to what they’ve been taught, which is that what you see and learn in school is right. In an article from the Bergen County Record, University of Maryland associate professor, Jeffrey Arnett states, “It’s a misuse of the environment of the school. Schools should not be endorsing products. Schools are powerful institutions.”(a1) The confusion of having something no good for them being advertised in a place that is supposed to teach them all the good things could be very confusing to students. That mixed signal being sent to them could cause student to lose the trust they had for school, ruining its credibility.

Allowing fast food companies to advertise in schools gives them influence in the learning process. Fast food companies have been trying to advertise in schools for decades. These companies know that school is the perfect stage to promote their products and build brand loyalty. School guarantees them a captive audience for six to seven hours a day in an environment where children minds are very receptive. For fast food companies it is the perfect market to build the lifelong customers they are looking for. If they can get their product into a learning environment they are guaranteed to get their views across. For these companies children are a lucrative market. There are over 45 million children in school. Although we might not think of children as consumers, they have great economic clout. Elementary-age children spend over 11 billion dollars a year on a wide variety of products including food and beverages. Teenagers spend 57 billion dollars of their own money yearly. That is not counting the billions of dollars in purchases they influence. In Eric Schlosser’s, “Fast Food Nation”, he talks about the techniques fast food advertisers rely on to sell products such as nagging and its many forms (42-44). The spending power students have and the desire of fast food companies to harvest it has given birth to a whole industry devoted to getting the company’s product in school and ideas into kid’s heads. We find in Schlosser’s book that one such company, Lifetime Learning Systems tells companies, “Now you can enter the classroom through custom-made learning materials created with your specific marketing objectives in mind, through these materials your product or point of view becomes the focus of discussion in the classroom.”(56) This company which has worked with McDonalds bills itself as, “the nation’s recognized leader in the creation and dissemination of corporate-sponsored educational materials.” When these companies donate supplies and materials to our schools it comes with a price. The students are given slanted views on certain topics that favor the company’s product. Education is not supposed to be influenced by outside factors. Students deserve to learn the facts and make their own decisions based on unbiased information. By letting the advertising in our schools will lose that neutral position. The companies try to disguise their motives by donating supplies and materials to struggling schools but usually these donations come with a contract that allows their logo and message to be displayed. If they really wanted to be charitable they would just donate anonymously and unconditionally. These sponsored materials serve the purpose of getting their message to the students. Having these materials in the classroom allows the companies to play a part in the learning process and influence it their favor. That may sound like a good idea to the school districts because it will help reduce costs but in the end it’s the students who wind up losing. Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association argues it seems everyone wins except the child who is subject to the barrage of propaganda. “Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas.” Fege says. It would be hard for the teacher to tell the children that fried foods are bad for you while reading from a textbook with a Ronald McDonald cover on it. This type of corporate involvement in our schools would be only beneficial to the districts and the companies. The kids would end up in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. Alex Molnar, author of, “Giving Kids the Business” states,” Private profit is the motive behind funding for public education.” These companies are waiting to take advantage of most school districts need for supplies and contributions to get their foot in the door and their hooks in our kids.

In conclusion, having fast food advertising in our schools does a disservice to our children. They are going to school to be educated, not sold things. We have to maintain the integrity of our schools if we want our children to continue to learn. Students should not be influenced by corporate agenda when learning. School’s single goal should be what’s best for the kids. Children should be able to focus on learning without being inundated by advertisements. Teachers and administrators should set the agenda not outside commercial interests. We trust school officials and teachers to be surrogates four our children while in school, not pimps, prostituting their minds to the fast food nation for rulers and computers.











Works Cited
"Captive Kids: A Report on Commercial Pressures on Kids at School." Consumers Union 1995. Consumers Union. Web. .
Gearan, Anne. "Channel One Ads Just a Portion of Commercialism in Schools." The Associated Press. 10 Dec. 1998. Web.
Gill, Dee. "The Business of Education;Subtle Seduction in Classrooms;Critics Say Earning-not Learning-is Corporate Motive." The Houston Chronicle 15 Mar. 1993, 2 STAR ed., sec. A: 1. Print.
Kanner, Bernice. "Advertising Infiltrates Schools." Journal of Commerce 28 Mar. 2000: 4. Print.
Lavelle, Louis. "Commerce in The Classroom;Do In-School Ads Exploit Children?" The Record [Bergen County, NJ] 7 Feb. 1999, News sec.: A01. Print.
Molnar, Alex. Giving Kids the Business: the Commercialization of America's Schools. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1996. Print.

CAFO's Feeding Cows Grain is Inhumane & Dangerous.....

This research paper will address the practice of feeding grain to cows and the resulting beef they produce as opposed to feeding them grass. I will explain how CAFO’s ( Centralized Animal Feeding Operations ) feeding cows grain is inhumane and dangerous because it causes the growth and spread of E.coli 0157 through tainted beef and waste runoff and how switching cows back to their natural diet of grass is better for humans, cows and the environment. We will look at studies showing that grain diets cause acidity in the cow’s stomach which causes pain to them and produces E.coli 0157. That strain of E.coli can cause death to those who eat the contaminated beef. Also the excessive waste from the CAFO’s produces poisonous runoff which pollutes crops such as spinach and lettuce with E.coli. Most of the E.coli production can be stopped by simply switching the cows to a grass diet. The benefits for the environment, cow and beef consumer will be shown.

Annotated Bibliography # 3

Moyer, Lindsay. "Grass Is Greener: Buy Healthy Meat." Womens Health July-Aug. 2008. Print

Article on how cows are being fed cheap corn. Corn fed to cows produce greenhouse gases. How grass takes less fossil fuel to ship and feed cows than corn and grain. Also lists farms where grass-fed cows are. The grass-fed cows have higher conjugated linoleic acid per serving which aids in weight loss and lessens heart disease.


Planck, Nina. "Leafy Green Sewage." New York Times 21 Sept. 2006. Print

New York times article on recent spate of E.coli infections linked to spinach. Food safety officials say it comes from beef and dairy cattle. They blame E.coli 0157 which comes from the unnaturally acidic stomachs of cows being fed grain. 2007 journal says 80% of cattle affected. Article says to stop blaming spinach growers and start looking at beef farms.


"The Grass-Fed Revolution." Time 11 June 2006. LexisNexus. Web. 28 Apr. 2010. .

Time magazine article about JonTaggart, farmer of grass-fed cows. Dr. Steve Atchey says feedlot fattened animals have higher levels of saturated fat. Shows how grain diet raises acidity which breeds E.coli. How it contributes to Mad Cow disease. How overuse of antibiotics has created bacteria in cows.


Morgan, Dan. "Cattle Feedlots in Economic Pincer; Huge Fattening Feedlots at Center of Storm in Beef Economy." Washington Post 31 Jan. 1977, A1 sec. Print

News Articles on centralized animal feeding operations, Monfort of Colorado. How cows are fattened until 1100 pounds and then slaughtered. How cattle fed with corn are juicier and reach the slaughter weight faster. In 1950's opening of giant commercial facilities that fatten 30,000 to 100,000 animals at one time. Talks about fats food especially McDonald's development and what hamburgers are made of. Dispute between the American Cattleman's association on grass-fed vs. corn-fed cattle.


LeMieux, Dave. "What Could Be Better than Grass-fed, Free-range, Pesticide-free." Muskegon Chronicle [Michigan] 20 Mar. 2005, sec. D: 1. Print

Article about Creswick Farms in Raveena. Farm that has grass-fed cows. Purdue University study showing grass-fed beef higher in Omega 3 and similar to how we ate in stone age. Stone age diet shown to have fewer diseases. Tells how the farm composts all the animal waste.

Annotated Bibliography # 2

McDermott, Terry. "Burger Bacteria Hard To Trace in Blending Process." Times-Picayune [New Orleans] 12 Feb. 1993, National ed.: A2. Print

Article on E.coli bacteria found in Jack In The Box hamburgers. The USDA trying to figure out where the tainted beef originated from and what caused it. Also talks about how hamburger meat is processed.


Iggers, Jeremy. "Cattle Call; Grass-fed and Organic Beef Are Becoming More Popular as Consumers Seek Foods That Are More Healthful and Friendly to the Enviroment." Star Tribune [Minneapolis] 9 Oct. 2003, Metro ed., Taste sec.: 1T. Print.

Article on how people are traveling distances in oreder to purchase grass-fed organically raised beef. Talks about health related issues and tase differences in grass-fed amd grain-fed beef. Costs involved in running grass-fed organic farms. Also gives locations of organic farms.


Squires, Sally. "What's the Beef?" Washington Post 1 Aug. 2006, Final ed., Health sec.: F01. Print

Article on USDA standards for labeling beef. The standards for differences of grass-fed, certified organic and black angus beef. Has health and nutritional differences and discusses tast differences.


Sagon, Candy. "Grass-Fed Beef Called Healthier." Washington Post 15 Mar. 2006, Final ed., Food sec.: F01. Print

Report that grass-fed cows are higher in beneficialfatty acids from Union of Concerned Scientist. Report compares omega 3 levels. It also discusses tast differences between grass and grain fed cattle. Also the price difference in purchasing the two.


Segelken, Roger. "CU and USDA: Cattle Feeding Change Could Cut E.coli Risk." Cornell Chronicle [Massachusetts] 17 Sept. 1998. Print

Cornell University newspaper atricle of research done on how cattles diets could reduce E.coli. The study shows that in as little as 5 days of feeding grass the bacteria count is reduced. The study is supported by the USDA.

Advertising in School is Unethical & Corrupts the Learning Process While Promoting Corporate Agenda

“Letting Fast Food Companies Advertise in Schools is Unethical & Will Destroy the Integrity of the Educational System by Giving Companies the Ability to Corrupt the Learning Process & Promote Their Corporate Agenda”

School should be an ad-free zone for our children. Letting fast food companies advertise in schools is unethical and will destroy the integrity of the educational system by giving companies the ability to corrupt the learning process and promote their corporate agenda. We should not under any circumstances allow fast food advertising into our schools. Advertising would turn schools from a neutral place of learning into a 6 hour, ad filled, biased cage which kids are unable to escape from. Students and teachers would become trapped in the corporate web if allowed into our schools. Once let in there would be no way to avoid their influence.

School is supposed to be an educational environment. A place where a child goes to focus on learning. We teach them that it is a safe place where you are taught to learn from and trust what you are told. We tell them to listen to the teachers, principals, guidance counselors and coaches. We let them know these people have your best interest at heart. They are put on somewhat the same level as parents in many ways. School is the first place your parents ever leave you at. They drop you off in nursery school and tell you to listen to what your teachers tell you. That implies a level of trust. Your parents trust the school with your welfare. School plays such a major role in children’s development. Your experiences and what you learn there shape your future. You are taught that school is where you learn the truth about all subjects in life. You learn everything from biology to basketball; Spanish to sexual education; so if you saw a McDonald's or Burger King ad school, you would believe whatever that ad is selling or saying must be right. Ads found in school make it seem like the school is promoting the product. It can be so powerful because it is being shopped to a captive audience that has been asked to trust what the teacher says and does. Steven Kaplan, president of Sampling Corporation of America says, “There is an implied endorsement from a trusted institution” You’re taught whatever you read in your textbook is fact. So then whatever you read on the school wall must be fact too. When you see “MADD” and “Just Say No to Drugs “posters you know that getting high and drunk driving are bad for you. You see the posters for different colleges and know that you should go to one order to have a good future. That would lead you to believe what you see on school walls. So when you see the ad for the Whopper and Big Mac then surely they are good for you. Your school wouldn't steer you wrong. That's what you've been told your whole life. If we advertise these products in school then we are sending the message that they are good for you. That would be blurring the line between fact and propaganda. To allow fast food advertising would contradict the lessons being taught to kids. They're taught fast food like hamburgers; fries and soda are unhealthy and should only be consumed in moderation, if at all. By marketing such products in school, it's highly possible that students will get the wrong idea that they're okay after all. We can't be sending mixed signals to developing kids, otherwise we lose our credibility. It’s hard enough to get the children to learn what we’ve been teaching them for decades, now we throw a curve-ball at them. Materials in school should have a legitimate educational purpose, not a commercial motive. “It's a misuse of the environment of the school,” says, Jeffrey Arnett, an associate professor at the University of Maryland. “Schools should not be endorsing products, they are powerful institutions.” Letting fast food advertising into school walls would be a perversion of education.

Fast food companies have been trying to get access to advertising in schools for decades. School is the perfect stage to promote their products because it guarantees them a captive audience for six to seven hours a day. For the companies, kids are a lucrative market. There are over 45 million children in school. Although we might not think of children as consumers, they do have great economic clout. Today's elementary-age children have tremendous spending power; around 15 billion per year, 11 billion of which they spend on a wide variety of products from food, beverages, and clothes to toys and games. Teenagers spend 57 billion of their own money yearly. In addition they influence purchases of over 200 billion, according to James McNeal, a Texas A&M University professor. An entire industry has sprung up that's devoted solely to helping companies get their products in schools and to the kids. Fast food companies want to be able to get their views and product into children’s minds while they are vulnerable in order to build the cherished brand loyalty that lasts for a lifetime. They donate money and supplies to the schools but they are not doing it for nothing. These sponsored educational materials serve their purpose; getting their message to school kids. Alex Molnar writes, “Private profit is their motive behind funding for public education.” If they really wanted to be charitable they could just donate anonymously and unconditionally. Usually these educational materials come with a contract that allows their corporate name, logo and message to be displayed; sometimes even having their corporate mascot appear at certain sponsored events. A contract with the school districts is just that, a business arrangement. It really only benefits the two parties making the contract; the school district and the company, not the kids. The kids get caught in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. With any advertisement or sponsorship comes the sponsors influence and point of view. The fast food companies will be influencing the way our children view food and any other view the fast food companies want to portray in their ads. Dee Gill, from The Houston Chronicle writes, “Corporate sponsors have offered up millions of dollars in equipment from classroom materials to computers—that help keep schools’ cost down. School boards don’t have to cut budgets, parents don’t have to pay more taxes and teachers don’t have to beg to get these much-needed items as often when corporations help. But the escalating involvement of corporations in schools has some educational experts worried. Everyone wins except the child who is subjected to the barrage of propaganda, argues Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association. Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas, Fege says. Corporations have vested interests in promoting their own products or their own point of view. Allowing a corporation to direct the learning process—through filmstrips, curriculum guides or whatever they provide—allows it to further its own agenda through vulnerable children, he says. Even the educational films that so many companies provide for schools can be dangerous propaganda he says. He asks the questions: Do parents want their kids to learn about the environment from oil companies? Do they want children to learn nutrition from fast food vendors? In such cases, he says, those sponsors have reasons to portray the facts with a slant favorable to their industries. ‘If they (corporations) really wanted to further education, they’d pay for it.’ He says. ‘How could you justify distracting kids with this garbage if you were really concerned about educating them better? ‘ The advertising companies that have spawned from the entrance of advertising into the school market are not shy in stating their intended purpose. One such company, Lifetime Learning Systems, which has worked with McDonald's, bills itself as, “the nation's recognized leader in the creation and dissemination of corporate-sponsored educational materials.” The promotional intent of the company's service is quite evident in its own literature: “School is the ideal time to influence attitudes, build long-term loyalties, introduce new products, test market, promote sampling and trial usage and above all, to generate immediate sales.” Does this sound like a company that has our kid’s interest at heart? Sounds more like someone who is taking advantage of most school districts need for supplies and contributions to get their foot in the door and their hooks in our kids. The companies they represent prey on our children’s naivety and immaturity in order to make money.

In conclusion, having fast food advertising in our schools does a disservice to our children. They are going to school to be educated, not sold things. Senator Patrick Leahy says, “It's our responsibility to make it clear that schools are here to serve children, not commercial interest.” We have to maintain the integrity of our schools and credibility of our teachers if we want our children to continue to learn. Teachers should not be influenced by corporate agenda when teaching. The single goal should be what’s best for the children. Children should be able to focus on learning without being inundated by advertisements. Teachers and administrators should set the agenda not outside commercial interests. We trust school officials and teachers to be surrogates for our children while in school, not pimps, prostituting their minds to the fast food nation for rulers and computers.


Works Cited

"Captive Kids: A Report on Commercial Pressures on Kids at School." Consumers Union 1995. Consumers Union. Web. .

Gearan, Anne. "Channel One Ads Just a Portion of Commercialism in Schools." The Associated Press. 10 Dec. 1998. Web.

Gill, Dee. "The Business of Education;Subtle Seduction in Classrooms;Critics Say Earning-not Learning-is Corporate Motive." The Houston Chronicle 15 Mar. 1993, 2 STAR ed., sec. A: 1. Print.

Kanner, Bernice. "Advertising Infiltrates Schools." Journal of Commerce 28 Mar. 2000: 4. Print.

Lavelle, Louis. "Commerce in The Classroom;Do In-School Ads Exploit Children?" The Record [Bergen County, NJ] 7 Feb. 1999, News sec.: A01. Print.

Molnar, Alex. Giving Kids the Business: the Commercialization of America's Schools. Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1996. Print.

Advertising in School Unethical & Corrupts Learning Process While Promoting Corporate Agenda

School should be an ad-free zone for our children. Letting fast food companies advertise in schools is unethical and will destroy the integrity of the educational system by giving companies the ability to corrupt the learning process and promote their corporate agenda. We should not under any circumstances allow fast food advertising into our schools. Advertising would turn schools from a neutral place of learning into a 6 hour, ad filled, biased cage which kids are unable to escape from. Students and teachers would become trapped in the corporate web if allowed into our schools.

School is supposed to be an educational environment. A place where a child goes to focus on learning. We teach them that it is a safe place where you are taught to trust what you are told. We tell them to listen to the teachers, principals, guidance counselors and coaches. We let them know these people have your best interest at heart. They are put on somewhat the same level as parents in many ways. School is the first place your parents ever leave you at. They drop you off in nursery school and tell you to listen to what your teachers tell you. That implies a level of trust. Your parents trust the school with your welfare. School plays such a major role in a childs development. Your experiences and what you learn there shape your future. You are taught that school is where you learn the truth about all subjects in life. You learn everything from biology to basketball; Spanish to sexual education;. So if you saw a McDonald's or Burger King ad school, you would believe whatever that ad is selling or saying must be right. Ads found in school make it seem like the school is promoting the product. It can be so powerful because it is being shopped to a captive audience that has been asked to trust what the teacher says and does. Steven Kaplan, president of Sampling Corporation of America says, “There is an implied endorsement from a trusted institution” You're taught whatever you read in your textbook is fact. So then whatever you read on the school wall must be fact too. When you see the, “MADD” and “Just Say No to Drugs “ posters you know that getting high and drunk driving are bad for you. You see the posters for different colleges and know that you should go to one order to have a good future. That would lead you to believe what you see on school walls. So when you see the ad for the Whopper and Big Mac then surely they are good for you. Your school wouldn't steer you wrong. That's what you've been told your whole life. If we advertise these products in school then we are sending the message that they are good for you. That would be blurring the line between fact and propaganda. To allow fast food advertising would contradict the lessons being taught to kids. They're taught fast food like hamburgers, fries and soda are unhealthy and should only be consumed in moderation, if at all. By marketing such products in school, it's highly possible that students will get the wrong idea that they're okay after all. We can't be sending mixed signals to developing kids, otherwise we lose our credibility. It’s hard enough to get the children to learn what we’ve been teaching them for decades, now we throw a curve-ball at them. Materials in school should have a legitimate educational purpose, not a commercial motive. “It's a misuse of the environmentt of the school,” says, Jeffrey Arnett,an associatee professor at the University of Maryland. “Schools should not be endorsing products, they are powerful institutions.” Letting fast food advertising into school walls would be a perversion of education.

Fast food companies have been trying to get access to advertising in schools for decades. School is the perfect stage to promote their products because it guarantees them a captive audience for six to seven hours a day. For the companies, kids are a lucrative market. There are over 45 million children in school. Although we might not think of children as consumers, they do have great economic clout. Today's elementary-age children have tremendous spending power; around 15 billion per year, 11 billion of which they spend on a wide variety of products from food, beverages, and clothes to toys and games. Teenagers spend 57 billion of their own money yearly. In addition they influence purchases of over 200 billion, according to James McNeal, a Texas A&M University professor. An entire industry has sprung up that's devoted solely to helping companies get their products in schools and to the kids. Fast food companies want to be able to get their views and product into children’s minds while they are vulnerable in order to build the cherished brand loyalty that lasts for a lifetime They donate money and supplies to the schools but they are not doing it for nothing. These sponsored educational materials serve their purpose; getting their message to school kids. Alex Molnar writes, “ Private profit is their motive behind funding for public education.” If they really wanted to be charitable they could just donate anonymously and unconditionally. Usually these educational materials come with a contract that
allows their corporate name, logo and message to be displayed. Sometimes even having their corporate mascot appear at certain sponsored events. A contract with the school districts is just that, a business arrangement. It really only benefits the two parties making the contract, the school district and the company, not the kids. The kids get caught in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. With any advertisement or sponsorship comes the sponsors influence and point of view. The fast food companies will be influencing the way our children view food and any other view the fast food companies want to portray in their ads. Dee Gill, from The Houston Chronicle writes, “ Corporate sponsors have offered up millions of dollars in equipment from classroom materials to computers—that help keep schools’ cost down. School boards don’t have to cut budgets, parents don’t have to pay more taxes and teachers don’t have to beg to get these much-needed items as often when corporations help. But the escalating involvement of corporations in schools has some educational experts worried. Everyone wins except the child who is subjected to the barrage of
propaganda, argues Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association. Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas, Fege says. Corporations have vested interests in promoting their own products or their own point of view. Allowing a corporation to direct the learning process—through filmstrips, curriculum guides or whatever they provide—allows it to further its own agenda through vulnerable children, he says. Even the
educational films that so many companies provide for schools can be dangerous propaganda he says. He asks the questions: Do parents want their kids to learn about the environment from oil companies? Do they want children to learn nutrition from fast food vendors? In such cases, he says, those sponsors have reasons to portray the facts with a slant favorable to their industries. ‘If they really (corporations) really wanted to further education, they’d pay for it.’ He says. ‘How could you justify distracting kids with this garbage if you were really concerned about educating them better? ‘ The advertising companies that have spawned from the entrance of advertising into the school market are not shy in stating their intended purpose. One such company, Lifetime Learning Systems, which has worked with McDonald's, bills itself as, “the nation's recognized leader in the creation and dissemination of corporate-sponsored educational materials.” The promotional intent of the company's service is quite evident in its own literature: “School is the ideal time to influence attitudes, build long-term loyalties, introduce new products, test market, promote sampling and trial usage and above all, to generate immediate sales.” Does this sound like a company that has our kids interest at heart? Sounds more like someone who is preying on most school districts need for supplies and contributions to get their foot in the door and their hooks in our kids. Worse than that, the companies they represent want to prey on our childrens naivety and immaturity in order to make money.

In conclusion, having fast food advertising in our schools does a disservice to our children. They are going to school to be educated, not sold things. Senator Patrick Leahy says, “It's our responsibility to make it clear that schools are here to serve children, not commercial interest.” We have to maintain the
integrity of our schools and credibility of our teachers if we want our children to continue to learn. Teachers should not be influenced by corporate agenda when teaching. The single goal should be whats best for the children. Children should be able to focus on learning without being inundated by advertisements. Teachers and administrators should set the agenda not outside commercial interests. We trust our school officials and teachers to be surrogates for our children while in school, not pimps, prostituting our children to the fast food nation for rulers and computers.

" No In-School Advertising " Body Paragraphs & outline

School is supposed to be an educational environment. The one place a child can go and focus on learning and his/her future. We even teach them that it is a safe place where you can trust what you are told. In fact we tell them to listen to the teachers, principals, guidance counselors and coaches. That these people have your best interest at heart. Sometimes that they only come second to your parents some ways. I mean your parents have trusted them with your well being since you were first dropped off at nursery school. In the past the school even had the right to use corporal punishment. Your parents tell you that school plays a major part in your future. What you learn there and how you use it is a determining factor in the quality of life you will have as you grow up. With all that told to you, if you saw a McDonalds or Burger king ad in your school, then you would believe that whatever the ad is selling or saying must be right. We are told only true things are taught in school. Whatever is in your textbook is fact. So whatever is on the school wall must be fact too. They have the “Just Say No to Drugs “posters and you’re told drugs are bad. You pledge allegiance to the flag, and the flag is good because your country is good, right? “MADD “posters are there to tell you that drunk driving is deadly wrong. Posters telling you to go to college because college is important to your future. So if all the things that you see at school are supposed to be good and have your best interest at heart, then that Big Mac must be good for you. That Whopper must be healthy for you just like, “The Presidents Challenge” you take every year in gym class, because it’s there like the presidents poster is. By having these companies in our schools we are sending the message they are good and healthy products. Otherwise why would they be in schools where all the other things we are taught to learn are. How we can send the message that even though it’s in your school, put there by your school, teachers and principals, that it might not be right when these are the same people we are taught for 17 years are to be listened to and respected. It’s hard enough to get the children to learn what we’ve been teaching them for decades, now we want to throw a curveball at them. We take away the credibility and integrity of the institution by letting fast food advertisers in.

The fast food companies want in the schools so that they can push their views and product into children’s minds while they are vulnerable. They may donate money and supplies to the schools but they are not doing it for nothing. If they really wanted to be charitable they would do just that and donate unconditionally. A contract with the school districts is just that, a business arrangement. It really only benefits the two parties making the contract, the school district and the company, not the kids. The kids get caught in crossfire between the district balancing their budget and the company pushing their burger. With any advertisement or sponsorship comes the sponsors influence and point of view. The fast food companies will be influencing the way our children view food and any other view the fast food companies want to portray in their ads. Dee Gill, from The Houston Chronicle writes, “ Corporate sponsors have offered up millions of dollars in equipment—everything from classroom materials to computers—that help keep schools’ cost down. School boards don’t have to cut budgets, parents don’t have to pay more taxes and teachers don’t have to beg to get these much-needed items as often when corporations help. But the escalating involvement of corporations in schools has some educational experts worried. Everyone wins except the child who is subjected to the barrage of propaganda, argues Arnold Fege, director of government relations for the Washington based National Parent-Teacher association. Schools are supposed to be free marketplaces of ideas, Fege says. Corporations have vested interests in promoting their own products or their own point of view. Allowing a corporation to direct the learning process—through filmstrips, curriculum guides or whatever they provide—allows it to further its own agenda through vulnerable children, he says. Even the educational films that so many companies provide for schools can be dangerous propaganda he says. He asks the questions: Do parents want their kids to learn about the environment from oil companies? Do they want children to learn nutrition from fast food vendors? In such cases, he says, those sponsors have reasons to portray the facts with a slant favorable to their industries. ‘If they (corporations) really wanted to further education, they’d pay for it.’ He says. ‘How could you justify distracting kids with this garbage if you were really concerned about educating them better? ‘

MLA Annotated Bibliography on " Farming Cattle & Livestock "

Livestock Farms May Increase Asthma Risk." Newswire. UPI. 21 June 2006. Web

A study done in Iowa on the effects of large-scale livestock farms and CAFO’s (Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations) on children specifically with asthma. Study shows that inflammatory substances are released from CAFO’s and cause health damage to workers and nearby communities. Researchers studied two elementary schools, one near a CAFO and one farther away. Study found that percentage for asthma doubled at school closer than school farther away.


USA. Missouri Environmental Compliance. Concentrated Animal Feeding Bill Passes. By
Armstrong, Teasdale, Schlafy, and Davis. M. Lee Smith & Printers, 1996. Print.

A Missouri bill from the Department of Natural Resources outlining the rules and laws Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations must abide by. Rules defining the amount of space needed compared to the amount of animals being housed. How record keeping and inspections are to be handled. The fund that must be created by each Operation.


Weiss, Rick. "FDA Is Set To Approve Milk, Meat From Clones." Newswire. TechNews. 17 Oct. 2006. Web.

An article on the ongoing battle to get FDA (Food and Drug Administration) approval on selling food products from genetically cloned animals. Studies showing the health and safety comparisons of the cloned animals compared to normal ones. Debate on whether or not the FDA should take into consideration any ethical concerns of cloned meat. The International Dairy Foods Association role in FDA action concerning the approval of sales and labeling of cloned animal products for public consumption.


Allen, Arthur. "As Food Production and Preparation Moves Farther Afield, Tainted Items Become Hard to Avoid." The Washington Post 8 Dec. 2009, Health sec.: HE01. Print

An article on food –borne diseases becoming more prevalent in America. Example of a young child getting sick from contaminated apple juice. Information on E.coli 0157:H7. How it affected the fast food industry. Now not only corn fed cattle are carrying E.coli 0157 but grass fed free ranging ones also. How some vegetables including tomatoes are vulnerable. Also details recent outbreaks of food poisoning across America.


Environmental Protection Agency. Documents and Publications. Feedlot Facility Pays $8,000 for Alleged Animal Waste Violations. Ontario, Oregon, 2009. Print.

Press release from the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) on an Oregon concentrated animal feeding operations owner paying fine his operation having animal waste leaking into a river tributary. How the EPA cracking down on animal feeding operations polluting waters under the Clean Water Act.

Cheap Calories Can Cost So Much...

In America money has influence over so many different aspects of our lives. It range's all the way from your education to your health. The health of lower income and minorities are getting worse and worse due to their eating habits. The pricing of food plays a big role in that. The governments subsidizing of corn is creating an epidemic of high fructose corn syrup being added to all types of food we eat. All the high fructose corn syrup and other energy dense foods we eat is a big part of why the obesity rate in America is so high. That obesity rate is why we have such a staggering number of people suffering from type 2 diabetes, especially children and teenagers. That number is even higher when it comes to minorities. One reason for that is those unhealthy foods are cheaper, since that is all they can afford, that is what they wind up eating.

The pricing of our food plays such an important part when we make the choice of what to eat. The fact that the cheapest foods are the unhealthiest is why our health problems continues to grow. Why is it that the higher calorie, energy dense processed foods are cheaper than the whole foods. You would think that since it takes so much more machinery, chemicals, and manpower to process food it would be more expensive than whole foods such as fruits and vegetables which only require growing and picking. In, “The Omnivore's Dilemma” by Michael Pollan, he says, “ One reason that obesity and diabetes become more prevalent the further down the socioeconomic scale you look is that the industrial food chain has made energy dense foods the cheapest foods in the market, when measured in terms of cost per calorie. A recent study in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition compared the 'energy cost' of different foods in the supermarket. The researchers found that a dollar could buy 1.200 calories of potato chips and cookies; spent on a whole food like carrots the same dollar buys only 250 calories. On the beverage aisle, you can buy 875 calories of soda for a dollar, or 170 calories of fruit juice from concentrate. It makes good economic sense that people with limited money to spend on food would spend it on the cheapest calories- fats and sugars – are precisely the ones offering the biggest neurobiological rewards.” So because they only have limited money to spend they try to get the biggest bang for their buck. That bang puts them in the high risk category for diabetes and other diseases. As shown in Robert Kenner's movie, “ Food Inc.”, many lower income families rely on the fast food restaurants dollar or value menu to feed their family because that is all they can afford. Children wind up eating unhealthy calories day after day which is why type 2 diabetes is so prevalent in younger people today. We fill up on these foods because they are cheap. Pollan writes, “ When food is abundant and cheap, people will eat more of it and get fat.” Too bad we don't have healthy cheap food.

The government needs to acknowledge their part in the obesity epidemic. Changes need to be made to stop our dependency on products such as high fructose corn syrup, fats, and sugars. America is capable of growing and producing so many healthy fruits, vegetables, and whole foods that we should make them affordable. That way everyone no matter how much money you make is able to eat healthily and avoid food related diseases. There is a quote in Pollan's book that sums up why that change needs to come. “ Very simply, we subsidize high fructose corn syrup in this country but not carrots. While the surgeon general is raising alarms over the epidemic of obesity, the president is signing farm bills designed to keep the river of cheap corn flowing, guaranteeing that the cheapest calories in the supermarket will continue to be the unhealthiest.”

" The Power of Commitment "

Until one is committed, there is hesitancy, the chance to
draw back, always ineffectiveness. Concerning all acts of
initiative and creation, there is one elementary truth the
ignorance of which kills countless ideas and splendid
plans: that the moment one definitely commits oneself,
then providence moves too. All sorts of things occur to
help one that would never otherwise have occurred. A
whole stream of events issues from the decision, raising in
one’s favour all manner of unforeseen incidents and
meetings and material assistance, which no man could
have dreamed would have come his or her way.

Whatever you can do or dream you can, begin it. Boldness
has genius, power and magic in it. Begin it now.

-J.W. von Goethe

ATTENTION All MOTHERS!!! Breaking News in the Pediatric Field !!!

The doctor no longer advises breast feeding or giving babies bottles of milk!!! Which doctor you ask?......World renowned, board certified pediatrician Dr.Pepper of course.

A Few Cents makes Sense...

New York is trying to decide whether or not to pass a tax on soda and other sugary drinks. Between the state of our economy and the unusually high obesity rate of Americans, in particular children, this should be a no-brainer. It essentially has the possibility of killing two birds with one stone. First, the tax money could be put towards our failing budget and help put a stop to all the cuts in everything from transportation, education and recreation to police, firefighters and health care workers.
Second, it could put a dent in the obesity rate of our children, which not only leads to a healthier, productive future for them, but also a brighter one for us and this country.


As reported in the New York Daily News by Samuel Goldsmith, “ An independent analysis of the state budget shows failure to pass the proposed soda tax would cost new York City 16,710 health care jobs. The study conducted by the Greater New York Hospital Association, indicates a tax on sugar-sweetened beverages would stop the “systematic defunding of health care” in the city. 'The revenue expected to be raised from the soda tax, all of it would go toward vital health services that would prevent the kind of layoffs we've seen over the past few years.' Brian Conway, a vice president of the association, said yesterday. Conway says a penny-per-ounce sugar-sweetened beverage tax would provide some $507 million in tax revenue per year. 'If it fails we could be looking at even deeper health care cuts,' he said. 'The consequences of that could be awful.'” The last thing we need in this economy is more job cuts. The last place we need less qualified people working is in the health field, especially with Americans health being the way it is today. I believe it better to add taxes on something non-essential like soda, than to raise things more vital to New Yorkers survival such as metrocards, and income taxes. If you don't want to pay the tax, buy another beverage such as juice or milk, which are actually healthier for you anyway. Albany and City Hall have already had to lay off many workers because of the tremendous budget deficit. They have threatened to raise public transportation prices again. They have even had to install many cuts in funding to parks and recreations, which directly affects all of us. Finally, they have come up with a way to bring some money in that won't affect you unless you choose to let it. With all the stress that comes with living and working in the big city, plus the dangers that can come along with being a metropolis, imagine less health workers being there when you need them.


America is suffering from its highest obesity rate in decades. Americans today are larger and fatter than ever before. Our diet of processed foods and sugar-filled beverages have led us to massive weight gains. That extra fat leads to a myriad of health problems which contain major factors for heart attacks and strokes. These problems are usually reserved for the elderly, but the epidemic of obesity in our country has changed that. As Claudia Kalb from Newsweek wrote, “The epidemic is most alarming among American children: rates have tripled among kids ages 12 to 19 since 1980, with one third of America's youth now overweight or obese and almost 10 percent of infants and toddlers dangerously heavy. Obese kids, defined by a body-mass index at or above the 95th percentile for children of the same age and sex, are at risk for developing conditions in childhood once monopolized by adults: high blood pressure, high cholesterol, and type 2 diabetes. And many are stigmatized and suffer from low self-esteem, which can lead to depression. If current trends continue, nearly one in three kids born in 2000 and one I two minorities will develop type 2 diabetes in their lifetime, according to the American Diabetes Association. The disease is linked to heart attack, stroke, blindness, amputation, and kidney disease. Indeed, a study published last month found that obese children are more than twice as likely to die prematurely as adults than kids on the lower end of the weight spectrum.” We need to make parents as well as children aware of this problem. By adding a tax to soda and sweetened beverages, maybe we can raise kids awareness. They may question why the price of their Cherry Coke has gone up. Questions lead to answers. This can lead them to learning how unhealthy soda actually is, and how it possibly can shorten their lifespan. Many children have never been informed how unhealthy soda is or that there are healthier alternatives available for them. People say it's impossible to make an intelligent decision without all the facts. Hopefully those added cents on that Mountain Dew will get the youth talking and maybe bring about a change in their diet.


The future of New Yorkers, both financially and physically are in bad shape as it stands now. We need to make changes now if we want that to change. We cannot afford potentially devastating cuts to our public health and health care system by laying off thousands of workers. The result of that would put people's lives in danger. If we continue to keep high sugar beverages in our childrens diets, we are putting their lives in danger. Take this first step in change and pass the soda tax which is projected to bring in hundreds of millions to help stimulate the economy and save many jobs. It also will encourage healthier lifestyle choices which lead to a brighter, healthier, more productive future for our children and our country.


Goldsmith, Samuel, "Pass the soda tax or jobs will be canned, sez group", NY Daily News, March 21, 2010 Sports Final Edition


Kalb, Claudia, "Culture of Corpulence: American Innovations In Food, Transportation, and Technology are Threatening to Supersize Us All" Newsweek, March 22, 2010 U.S. Edition

Welcome to McDonalds, May I Mis-take Your Order Please?

How many of us have gone to McDonalds or another fast food restaurant and tried to order food only to be misunderstood by the person taking the order or have to repeat yourself numerous times and sometimes actually having to get a manager to place your order because the employee does not speak and understand English. This can be very frustrating to the consumer, but also to the worker. We the consumer get frustrated because our time is wasted and customer service level is decreased by having to repeat ourselves or getting an incorrect order fixed, but the worker is also frustrated because he/she can feel incompetent for getting the order wrong and lose the confidence they may have in doing their job. This can lead to lazy, unmotivated workers but in some cases may transcend from just lack of motivation at work, all the way to social retardation. Being able to speak and understand English while working here in America isn’t just an important job skill that many workers in the fast food industry lack; but necessary knowledge to fully function in their everyday life.

Eric Schlosser writes in his book, “Fast Food Nation” chapter 3, pages. 70-71, “English is now the second language of at least one-sixth of the nation’s restaurant workers and about one-third of that group speaks no English at all. The proportion of fast food workers who cannot speak English is even higher.” The fast food industry’s main sources of workers are teenagers and immigrants. They know that since they hire so many immigrants, most of them will not have a full grasp of the English language, if they have any at all. That is why most of their training is not built around learning a skill but based more on just how to use a machine. They create machines that don’t rely on an employee’s knowledge but just on when to push this or pull that. Words have even been replaced with pictures on registers and kitchen equipment, as if to take the thinking aspect completely out of the equation. Most of the times a fast food restaurant is that person’s first job, so not being taught any work skills can be very detrimental to the employee’s growth and ability to gain future employment. With every job you are supposed to learn something you take with you throughout your work career and your life. Working someplace and not learning anything valuable from it could be considered just a waste of time. The fast food industry needs to stop “de-skilling” its workforce and start trying to give them something they can take with them, maybe even something as valuable as learning how to speak English.

“When Esmeralda Armijo arrived in Dallas from Mexico in 1995, she didn’t speak a word of English and took the first job she could find, as a kitchen worker at a McDonald’s restaurant. Shortly afterward, the restaurant owner created an English class for Spanish-speaking employees who were interested in advancing their careers. Armijo was in the second class, and in 1998, she became a store manager. The number of Hispanics in the restaurant industry is rising dramatically, and restaurant owners say language training is crucial to developing the next generation of industry leaders. Don Cucovatz, director of training for Bailbrook Partnership, the franchise company that owns the restaurant where Armijo got her start, said that language training is a good recruitment and retention tool. Pizza hut also has English as a Second language program for its Hispanic workers. Campos credits the program with helping several Spanish-speaking employees advance to management positions.” Although the restaurant benefits from more confident employees and the workers see their career ambitions fulfilled, there are also personal payoffs. It’s a life changing experience which helps them not only at work but in their personal life too. Giving them the ability to communicate with doctors, teachers, police, and make friends they may not have been able to before they learned to speak English. It takes their world from being only Spanish speaking restaurants and neighborhood shops, and opens it up to unlimited opportunities not bound by the language barrier. It is good to see some franchise owners of these big corporations trying to teach their employees valuable skills and tools they can use in the real world. It actually makes good business sense for them to also, because not only will it improve customer service and order accuracy, but it builds some company loyalty. Once promoted the turnover rate is only like 8 percent when the industry standard is 35-40 percent. I hope that corporate headquarters sees that there may be profit in that and introduces the practice company wide. It always seems that money is the only thing that ever gets corporate attention but in this case the oft-forgotten employee will see some profit too.

Godinez, Victor. “Restaurants serving staff language lessons.”
Dallas Morning News. August 6, 2003.

Hey Ronnie I'm Missing the McRib !!!

I know we've been reading Schlosser's book and he's not the biggest fan of MickyD's but I gotta admit one thing... I love the McRib and they need to bring it back. Who's with me??? A McRib and a good batch of fries when they get'em right, nice and hot and salty, like before they changed the oil they're cooked in..... ooohhh man I actually am Lovin It....with somethings you just gotta forget about whether its healthy or not and just focus on the taste; a good slice of New York pepperoni pizza, a nice juicy burger, a medium rare steak, chicken fried just right, bbq ribs falling off the bone dripping with sauce , a Coffee Fribble ( a milkshake from Friendlys for all you youngstas ), 3 cheese 3 meat lasagna and Mcdonalds fries done just right....

America Abolished Slavery in 1865...Guess the Fast Food Industry Didn't Get the Memo...

The ability to earn a fair day’s pay for a fair day’s work is something America promises its citizens. The government has instituted many labor laws such as federal and state minimum wage to insure that for working Americans. Then why do many “all-American” corporations such as McDonalds, Burger King, Pizza Hut, Taco Bell and KFC continue to try to find ways to get around paying their workers for hours worked? These companies take advantage of their already low paid workers need for their job and ignorance of legal labor rights by having them work off the clock, while rewarding their lower level management with bonuses for meeting labor cost budgets. This practice seems very similar to wealthy land owners rewarding their overseers for higher crop production at the expense of the slaves.


According to Eric Schlosser in his book, “Fast Food Nation” chapter 3, pages 74-75, “The fast food chains often reward managers who keep their labor costs low, a practice that often leads to abuses. In 1997 a jury in Washington State found that Taco Bell had systematically coerced its crew members into working off the clock in order to avoid paying them overtime. The bonuses of Taco Bell restaurant managers were tied to their success at cutting labor costs. The managers had devised a number of creative ways to do so. Workers were forced to wait until things got busy at a restaurant before officially starting their shifts. They were forced to work without pay after their shifts ended. They were forced to clean restaurants on their own time. And they were sometimes compensated with food, not wages. Many of the workers involved were minors and recent immigrants.” This quote is just another example of how so many American companies who want you to spend your money on their products and services portray themselves as a wholesome all American brand when behind the scenes their corporate agenda goes against everything America stands for. We abolished slavery yet it seems to be going on at your local burger, taco and pizza joint everyday. The labor laws were passed to protect the average, everyday employee from the giant corporate monster who will stop at nothing to gain a profit. The giant is now even willing to reward middle management with some scraps off their table of profits if they continue to find “creative”, in other words illegal ways to keep the tiny cogs of the corporate money machine grinding away. As stated above most victims of these crimes were the young, naïve and inexperienced minors or the dependant, desperate immigrants often ignorant to their rights as employees. Another example of the strong preying on the weak and the rich using the poor to get richer, something I thought America was sternly against. Every American is guaranteed life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness but I guess that doesn’t apply if you’re on fries at McDonalds or making Chalupas at Taco Bell.


Even though I have never worked in a fast food restaurant, I have worked in the food industry for over 12 years. I started working in a TGI Fridays restaurant in Rockville Centre, Long Island in 1996 as a busboy and host, eventually working my way up to being a server and bartender. Like most companies the managers were always concerned about labor costs and looking for ways to cut them all the time because the lower the labor costs, the higher their bonuses would be. Overtime was discouraged if not completely forbidden. Managers always wanted the least amount of people clocked in at all times. The walls of all TGI Friday restaurants have Tiffany glass and lights along with many items of memorabilia, pictures, ads, and other assorted junk. These items need to be dusted and cleaned regularly. Rather than pay a cleaning crew to do the cleaning, the managers have what they call “beautification “nights. Basically I along with all the other front of the house employees; servers, hosts, busboys, and bartenders had to come in one night once the restaurant had closed and spend one to two hours dusting and cleaning the walls and decorations. The problem is that we never got paid for the time we spent cleaning. The mangers would bring pizza and soda for us to eat while we cleaned but I would have much rather gotten dollars than Dominos. I didn’t argue that point because I did not want to make waves; it seemed to be an unwritten rule among the other employees that it was just something that came along with the job. I was making good money in tips and didn’t want to jeopardize losing my job so I never complained even though looking back what they were doing was illegal. Anytime you are performing work related duties at your job you are supposed to be compensated for it, plus if you are working on your job premises you are supposed to be on the clock so you can be covered for any injury that could happen. I was young and ignorant to these things so I look back and see how similar my situation was to the employees at Taco Bell who were forced to clean restaurants on their own time and sometimes compensated with food not wages. I see why these companies can get away with so many underhanded labor practices when the bulk of their workforce is young and naïve as I once was.

Win a gold medal by eating a Chicken McNugget ?

Where can you eat like an Olympian? Where can you eat like a true American hero? Where do professional athletes eat the food that makes them perform so well? McDonalds would like you to believe that ordering that 6 pack of McNuggets brings you closer to winning that gold medal. In the book, “Fast Food Nation” written by Eric Schlosser, he explains how McDonalds Corporation founder Ray Kroc wanted to create a safe, clean all-American place. He made sure every franchise flew the American flag because he understood how he sold food was just as important as how the food tasted. McDonalds has teamed up with one of the most patriotic and popular brands by aligning itself with the Olympics and the NBA. I would like to show you how through my research I found that that McDonalds is selling the dream many have of playing professional sports or representing your country at one of the most prestigious events in the world through their food.


The official restaurant of the 2010 Olympic village in Vancouver was McDonalds. The food of choice of American Olympians was the chicken McNugget. The Olympic sauce was McDonald’s new sweet chili dipping sauce, the same sauce the athletes use you can now use too. That is what McDonalds is telling the public. On their tray liners they say you can see how the Olympic athletes McNugget on their website. Most people believe there is no greater honor for an athlete than to represent their country at the Olympics. People train their whole life for that honor and millions watch them every 4 years in awe of their talent, strength, speed and agility. Now with the sponsorship of the Olympics McDonalds can now sell you a little bit of that Olympic dream and American patriotism. They even have young children thinking that eating at McDonalds in some way could help them get to the Olympics because the real athletes eat McDonalds and you see how talented they are right. That is the kind of advertising that many companies including McDonalds sell to the American public by associating their brand with such patriotic and all-American events and people. You almost feel like you are doing your country a service by eating there. On soda cups and packaging they have the Olympic rings printed and underneath they always have proud sponsor written with the word proud in bold print as if to emphasize that being proud and the McDonalds product go hand in hand. In America patriotism is a major seller, no one wants to buy anything “un-American” Consumers want to have pride in their purchases and McDonalds inspires that pride by selling you wholesome American products such as hamburgers, Coca-Cola and the Olympians favorite, chicken McNuggets.


On their takeout bags they have the phrase, “The Gold Standard” referring to the selection of potatoes that McDonalds uses to make their hash browns. They say only a tiny fraction will make the cut for McDonalds which also evokes thoughts of competition and the best winning. Going for the gold is what most people are taught and they want you to believe that by eating at McDonalds you have selected the best and are being served the best. They give out gold medals for number one at the Olympics, it’s what everyone works so hard for, and nobody wants anything less. By aligning their brand with the thought of gold it gives the customer thought of the best, the best ingredients, the best cuts of meat, the best tasting food.


The synergy created by the partnership of McDonalds and the Olympic games was another example of how Schlosser wrote that, “McDonalds marketing alliances with other brands were intended to create positive feelings about McDonald’s, making consumers associate one thing they liked with another. The feelings of pride associated by the Olympics would be used in ads to help launch a new hamburger with more meat than the Big Mac.” Advertisers know that if you combine patriotism and athletics you will have no problem selling anything. It’s like the perfect storm for an advertising campaign, and that combo couldn’t be found in any greater place than in the Olympic games, and by visiting your local McDonalds you can see that they are a proud sponsor of the games whenever you purchase a soft drink, French fry, burger or McNugget, and when you see that American flag flying outside you know they are proud Americans and they want you to believe that by eating there, it makes you one too.